Well actually there was an ancient canal, but it didn't follow the route of the modern canal. From an article on the Suez Canal:

"The idea of a canal linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea dates back to ancient times. Unlike the modern Canal, earlier ones linked the Red Sea to the Nile, therefore forcing the ships to sail along the River on their journey from Europe to India. It has been suggested that the first Canal was dug during the reign of Tuthmosis III, although more solid evidence credits the Pharaoh Necho (Sixth Century BC) for the attempt. During the Persian invasion of Egypt, King Darius I ordered the Canal completed. The Red Sea Canal, consisted of two parts: the first linking the Gulf of Suez to the Great Bitter Lake, and the second connecting the Lake to one of the Nile branches in the Delta. The canal remained in good condition during the Ptolemaic era, but fell into disrepair afterwards. It was re-dug during the rule of the Roman Emperor Trajan, and later the Arab ruler Amr Ibn-Al-Aas."

So there was a canal that connected the Red Sea to the Nile instead of the Med. This makes sense if you are concerned about increasing trade between Egypt and the orient, but it doesn't do much for trade between Europe and Asia. If Europe lies outside your realm, there isn't much incentive for a canal along the modern route. Also, the Nile branch waterway tends to carry a great deal of silt, requiring continuous and expensive dredging of the canal and/or its periodic abandonment.

However, this begs the question as to why the Romans didn't attempt to dig a canal reaching the Med. The economic advantages to the empire as a whole should have been obvious. There may still be a problem with beach sand migration clogging the outlet, but this can be handled by rubble/rock jetties. A typical first century merchantman had a capacity of 100 to 150 tons, a length of 100 feet, a hull of 25 feet and a draft of 10 feet ("Warfleets of Antiquity" by R.B. Nelson). A canal with double the depth required for the ship's draft and double the width needed for two way shipping traffic would be 20 feet deep and have a bottom width of 100 feet. Assuming a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical side slope from the bottom to the surface (soil is assumed to be sands and silty sands), the top width would be 260 feet. The trapezoidal cross section for the channel would have an area of 3,600 square feet. The current canal route is approximately 122 miles (644,000 feet).

Assuming relatively flat terrain, the Romans would have to move 2,318,400,000 cubic feet (85,900,000 cubic yards) of dirt. This is an earth works project similar is scope (assuming I didn't make a bone-headed math mistake) to Hadrians Wall, and is much easier to build as digging a ditch is simpler and cheaper than building a masonry structure. It is certainly dwarfed by the Chinese Grand Canal and the Great Wall.

Though I don't have my crew productivity manual handy, which would give me the production rates for hand digging with pick and shovel, this seems like a job that would keep a legion busy for a few years to a decade. This would be in keeping with Roman army SOP which kept the legions busy during peace time building roads and aqueducts. The project is doable and economically beneficial.

So why no ancient Suez Canal?

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I couldn't find anything on the wiki page about this.

I was just wondering whether or not there was a specific time that the government spending became so vast, for example in USA 2014 spending is 6.3 trillion were as back in 1900 it was 1,607.6 million. When and why has there been such a giant increase?

As the title suggest, I'm very curious about some resources on Napoleonic era tactics and would love to dive into them; however, I'm not sure where to start.

edit: fixed up my wording.

Why did the Russians cop such a beating in the First Chechen War?

And what/how did they fight differently to do better in te second war?

In both world wars, the Germans were literally within sight of victory only to be turned back and ultimately defeated. They implemented the Schlieffen Plan and sprinted across France/Belgium only to be turned back a stone's throw away from Paris. They moved through western Russia with blinding speed only to be defeated at Moscow. Of course, the circumstances of these two battles are very complicated, but I have a hard time believing these two events are sheer coincidence. Is there a common thread that connects the two?

For example, you never hear about slaves from India or China. I am reviewing for my history exam and one of the topics is Imperialism (both old and new). The question is not something I have to know but I was wondering about it while studying Imperialism. I would like to know the reasons for this. Thanks!

Historically, around the 19th century and earlier, Irish, Italians, Jews and other southern and eastern European people who weren't considered "white". They were discriminated heavily in employment and also considered "colored" people for other cases.

So my question is how did they attain whiteness? Was it a gradual process? Or was it more of a conscious transformation? Additionally, in theory could other races become "white" or have other races started to become "white" in recent years?

I am trying to buy the above mentioned book but there are so many different kinds of volumes therefore I am not sure which one I should buy. I would be glad if anybody can point out what are the differences between these books. My options: (from theclassics.us)

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence Volume 1 by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 371 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 373 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence Volume 2 by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 363 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 372 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 363 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 363 pages

The embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the court of the Great Mogul, 1615-1619, as narrated in his journal and correspondence by Roe, Thomas, Sir, 1581?-1644; 1899; 365 pages

If not, why are they depicted as naked in art?

Were the vassals of the HR emperor more independent?

Pretty much what the title says would love some sources or quotes about the use of the Calumet among different tribes

I was just watching a documentary on ancient Rome and it stated that the infant mortality rate in the empire was 50% and I often read of average life expectancies for certain periods. How exactly are these calculated? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that was kept track of in the ancient world. Are statistics like this generally trustworthy?

I know that Rome traded with India, and China, but I've never heard anything about Africa. Was there any Roman influence there?

Also, what could be a modern day example of this?

Yes, I know what they really are and all that. But how, where, and when did someone first say "if I ask that streak of light to solve my problem, then it will work"?